Re: "art" & money, was: amanda palmer

[Miko Biffle <biffoz@gmail.com>]

Thanks Mech,

Yes, I agree. The larger issue of devaluation has more wide-ranging
impact than merely trying to retain your economic rights as author and
somehow find a place in the market.  It's a daunting issue and with
the hordes of lemming musicians (including me) swarming all over the
web, I believe we are seeing the demise of the "professional" musician
model.

As for spiritual, artistic, academic discourse—it should be completely
open and vibrant as Louigi states! I'm not about to say anyone should
feel certain feelings or not quote other artists.  It's just that
pesky economic model and authorship issue that keeps being dismissed.
I simply refuse to believe it's just down the drain and gone.

Devaluation . . . possibly the death of an entire era and the end of
livlihood for a great many out there.  I'll still do art and have,
with little or no compensation, my entire life.  -m

On 10/8/09, Mech <mech@m3ch.net> wrote:
> At 3:43 PM -0700 10/7/09, Miko Biffle wrote:
>
> >
> >  > next: who should compensate them?
> > Whoever decides that they would like "the product" for themselves. 
>This is
> basic commercial business ideology. Please don't suggest that what's mine
> should somehow be available to other's FOR FREE, without my 
>authorization.
> That's called THEFT or PIRACY.
> >
>
>  Wait a second: I think we're going off on a -- while perfectly valuable 
>--
> tangent, it is a tangent nonetheless.  Not to drop the main topic 
>entirely,
> I don't think the crux of the main argument has much to do with piracy 
>per
> se.
>
>  Rather, I think we should remember that what we're truly dealing with is
> the simple and easy commodification of music and "art".
>
>  In recent years, technology has made it easy to produce music on one's 
>home
> PC that is technically far superior to anything that was readily 
>produced in
> professional studios only a couple of decades ago.  This has enabled 
>many,
> many, many, more people to realize their musical aspirations than has 
>been
> possible at any other time in history.  We all know that already, and I
> think very few of us view it as a bad thing.
>
>  The problem, however, is what happens to that music once it has been
> produced.
>
>  Well, a lot of it is put out there for free, as a labor of love. This, 
>for
> better or worse, has created a glut in the market.  You can download 
>hours
> upon hours of high-quality music without ever even being asked for a 
>cent in
> return.
>
>  So, the issue is not an audience that demands, "Give us your music for 
>free
> or we will pirate it anyway."  No, the issue is rather that the audience 
>is
> saying, "If your music isn't free, then we'll just go download music from
> Joe over there, who *is* giving it away for free."
>
>  The argument deals with the de-valuation of music, not whether it's 
>being
> "stolen".
>
>  And, like I said, the threads on piracy are valuable and should 
>continue as
> a side-discussion.  However, I believe that de-valuation of music (and 
>"art"
> in general) is a more difficult -- as well as a more important and
> long-ranging -- issue.  So I, for one, don't wish for that point to get 
>lost
> in a wash of anti-piracy sentiments.
>
>  Thoughts...?
>
>         --m.

-- 
Miko Biffle
Biffoz@Gmail.com
"Running scared from all the usual distractions!"